I have an 18-200mm Nikkor and it is what stays on my camera. Very good general purpose lense. I'll bring it to Moab and let you tinker with it. I would bring it to the meeting but this customer demo that JUST HAPPENED (4 months late) has ruined my ability to do anything in the evening. Now we're going on the road with them for 8 days.

I paid $485 for mine and got it through Craigslist. You can use my little search site for that too btw (www.themccumbers.com/States.html) and just pull down the photo selector.

Personally, I would spend my money on optics and forego the expensive bodies.

Ken can take quite a beating in the web-photo world, and very-true that he is "very confident" in his writings. He admits that...so take his writings with a grain of salt. good info, none-the-less.

I think if you want one lens to do just about anything...the 18-200 is a VERY nice lens. That being said I'm starting to take lots of pictures and different types of photographs. so....I, too, am going in the direction of "fast" lenses. My current faves are my 85 and 50mm 1.8's they rock....but are fixed focal length, so I need to use my "sneaker zoom" (walk back and forth).

I would also recommend Nikkor Glass...it's just plain great. spendy, but great. We drive Cruisers...not because they are cheap to get or to work on...they are just great.

If you want to go shoot something soon without spending lots of money. go get a "nifty fifty". that is, for like $130 you can get a 50mm/1.8 Nikkor lens. the sharpness and low-light capabilities will blow you away. and it's cheap.

My current faves are my 85 and 50mm 1.8's they rock....but are fixed focal length, so I need to use my "sneaker zoom" (walk back and forth).

A buddy of mine said he was planning to upgrade to the 50mm F/1.4 -- he said the difference between the 1.8 and the 1.4 was enough to make it worth the money. I've thought about making this my first lens as well, since the pictures would be ultrasharp.

Do it! you won't be disappointed. the 1.4 lens IS better...especially for the "bokeh" (the out of focus stuff in the background). for a comparison the "legacy" 1.4 is about $350-$400 and the "new" AFS version of the 1.4 is closer to $500.

the 50mm 1.8 is like $110 from B&H and $130 from Wolf/Ritz. and hopefully cheaper from your friend. :-)

Check Craigslist, there are a ton of lenses on there. I would buy used, save some good cash unless it is the high end glass. I have a Canon for a while now and though my body is about half the price my lenses have barely dropped. If you are looking at saving money but still getting good quality you can get a Sigma lens. I know some will say no way but unless you are blowing up your pictures to 17x11 or bigger you will not notice the difference as long as you get a sharp unit.

I know Canon and Sigma have two lines of lenses as I am sure Nikon does. Not sure what they call their upper level but if you can afford it that is the way to go. They barely loose value and use awesome glass.

PS No matter what quality lens you buy snap some pictures first with it before you buy it. There are sharp copies out there and soft ones. I looked at three 17-40 lenses till I found the one I thought was sharp enough.

PS No matter what quality lens you buy snap some pictures first with it before you buy it. There are sharp copies out there and soft ones. I looked at three 17-40 lenses till I found the one I thought was sharp enough.

How did you tell? Did you pull the pictures onto a computer and magnify the image to check sharpness?

I have several Nikkors that will work on your D200 (all but one is manual focus though). I can grab one or two for the meeting tomorrow if you want to push the button and see what happens on your new toy.

No Sony Alpha guys here then? My old set up is a Minolta 7xi so I picked up an alpha. All my old lenses work on the Sony body. In addition to all my old lenses I have the best Sony digital flash, digital zooms and GPS. I don't think I'll need anything more anytime soon. I was going to go the D200 or D300 route till I sat down and added up what all that would cost me in the end. To have what I have now I would have spent well over $3,000 going with Nikon. Maybe more. As it is, I spent less for everything than what the D200 bodies go for on ebay. I have most of the features, equal resolution, and just a bit more higher ISO noise than the Nikon. As soon as I master what I have I'll step up, but that is prolly going to be a long time from now.